Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 172–177 | Cite as

Usefulness and limitations of dual-layer spectral detector computed tomography for diagnosing biliary stones not detected by conventional computed tomography: a report of three cases

  • Hirokazu Saito
  • Kana Noda
  • Koji Ogasawara
  • Shutaro Atsuji
  • Hiroko Takaoka
  • Hiroo Kajihara
  • Jiro Nasu
  • Shoji Morishita
  • Ikuo Matsushita
  • Kazuhiro Katahira
Case Report

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) is useful for diagnosing biliary stones. However, the presence of stones not detected by conventional CT, such as iso-dense stones with CT numbers similar to those of bile or small stones, is problematic. Although conventional CT provides only 120-kVp images corresponding to CT numbers at approximately 70 keV, dual-layer spectral detector CT uses one X-ray source and dual-layer detectors to collect low- and high-energy data simultaneously; retrospective spectral analysis, including virtual monochromatic images with photon energy levels of 40–200 keV, material decomposition images, and spectral curves, can be immediately performed on demand. This technique can immediately discriminate between materials with similar conventional CT numbers. Therefore, prompt and accurate diagnosis of iso-dense stones can be performed. In two out of three of our cases, iso-dense stones were detected in virtual monochromatic images at 40 keV, but in the remaining case a common 4-mm bile duct stone was not detected on 120-kVp and 40-keV images by retrospective spectral analysis. However, this stone was detected by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Retrospective spectral analysis using dual-layer spectral detector CT was useful for prompt and accurate diagnosis of iso-dense stones, but detection of <5-mm stones may be a limitation of this technique and of conventional CT.

Keywords

Gallstone Common bile duct stone Dual-layer spectral detector computed tomography Retrospective spectral analysis Virtual monochromatic images 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Hirokazu Saito, Kana Noda, Koji Ogasawara, Shutaro Atsuji, Hiroko Takaoka, Hiroo Kajihara, Jiro Nasu, Shoji Morishita, Ikuo Matsushita and Kazuhiro Katahira declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human/animal rights

All procedures followed have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Saito H, Kakuma T, Kadono Y, et al. Increased risk and severity of ERCP-related complications associated with asymptomatic common bile duct stones. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E809–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tseng CW, Chen CC, Chen TS, et al. Can computed tomography with coronal reconstruction improve the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:1586–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim CW, Chang JH, Lim YS, et al. Common bile duct stones on multidetector computed tomography: attenuation patterns and detectability. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:1788–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson SW, Lucey BC, Varghese JC, et al. Accuracy of MDCT in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:174–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, et al. Dual- and multi-energy CT: principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. Radiology. 2015;276:637–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tazuma S, Unno M, Igarashi Y, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:276–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I, et al. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut. 2008;57:1004–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, et al. EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:248–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernández-Esparrach G, Ginès A, Sánchez M, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1632–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Chathadi KV, Chandrasekhara V, et al. The role of ERCP in benign diseases of the biliary tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang CB, Zhang S, Jia YJ, et al. Clinical application of dual-energy spectral computed tomography in detecting cholesterol gallstones from surrounding bile. Acad Radiol. 2017;24:478–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li H, He D, Lao Q, et al. Clinical value of spectral CT in diagnosis of negative gallstones and common bile duct stones. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:1587–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen AL, Liu AL, Wang S, et al. Detection of gallbladder stones by dual-energy spectral computed tomography imaging. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:9993–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doerner J, Luetkens JA, Iuga AI, et al. Poly-energetic and virtual mono-energetic images from a novel dual-layer spectral detector CT: optimization of window settings is crucial to improve subjective image quality in abdominal CT angiographies. Abdom Radiol. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1241-1.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagayama Y, Nakaura T, Oda S, et al. Dual-layer DECT for multiphasic hepatic CT with 50 percent iodine load: a matched-pair comparison with a 120 kVp protocol. Eur Radiol. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5114-3.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jendresen MB, Thorboll JE, Adamsen S, et al. Preoperative routine magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography before laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study. Eur J Surg. 2002;168:690–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rassouli N, Etesami M, Dhanantwari A, et al. Detector-based spectral CT with a novel dual-layer technology: principles and applications. Insights Imaging. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0571-4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oda S, Nakaura T, Utsunomiya D, et al. Clinical potential of retrospective on-demand spectral analysis using dual-layer spectral detector-computed tomography in ischemia complicating small-bowel obstruction. Emerg Radiol. 2017;24:431–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Gastroenterology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyKumamoto Chuo HospitalKumamotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKumamoto Chuo HospitalKumamotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryKumamoto Chuo HospitalKumamotoJapan

Personalised recommendations